4 ms·

> and in general the world is richer. My bank account tells a different story. Only very few people got richer. General purchasing power fell off like cliff in

by sprash 6y ago

> and in general the world is richer. My bank account tells a different story. Only very few people got richer. General purchasing power fell off like cliff in the US after the 70s when all the outsourcing happened. There is nothing positive about globalization. The bad effects are somewhat mitigated by a massive amount of technological progress. > closing borders to competitors outside eventually leads to inferior product. There is no proof for that. With close borders you can simply steal the intellectual property of your competitor and match the quality within a year. The Chinese are doing this for decades. > In general though, everyone is lifted up and made richer over time This is quantifiable wrong. Maybe you have to get out of your filter bubble. If anything globalization leads to more inequality. The statistics about how the top 1% make all the money whereas everybody else loses are neither controversial nor new.

kungato 6y ago
Note how the GP uses the word "world" while you use the words "the US"
barrkel 6y ago
The Chinese masses are much better off today than they were in the 70s. Globalization does increase inequality, particularly in countries with a lot of capital, but it also makes the very poor better off. What the US calls the middle classes do stagnate, though, and capitalists are the biggest winners - which, don't forget, also includes pension funds as a significant fraction. Most of the top 1% are wage slaves like everyone else. The top 1% by income isn't what's interesting; it's the top 1% by assets. Wealth inequality is much bigger than income inequality.
- sprash 6y ago
  But china is pretty nationalistic. They allow other global companies to produce within their borders, sure. But if you try to export something from another country to china you are going to have a bad time. So the reason why Chinese masses are so much better off today is this very "one-sided" version of globalism. You might as well call it nationalism.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    Plenty of people have gotten rich exporting goods to China. They just tend to be concentrated in relatively low income countries like Vietnam, exporting things like clothing and textiles. China actually likes this, because it frees resources to develop strategic industries with higher wages. Which is more or less what the US did with China.
    - sprash 6y ago
      Still China controls the borders very well and allows only products to enter when it serves the interest of China. This is the definition of nationalism and one of the reasons why the quality of life in China is rising so fast. Nationalism made China rich. Not globalism.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        I am not clear, what specifically does china limit imports of? You can sell cars, phones, just about anything i can think of, even loteral plastic waste is allowed, obly recently standards were tightened.
        scarmig 6y ago
        Moreover, even from the West, tons of cultural products are exported to China. That's what gives Beijing the implicit power to censor the NBA, video game companies, Hollywood, etc.
simonh 6y ago
I think it's inarguable that globalisation has put downward pressure on wages in a lot of industries. It's also made cheap products widely available to people who could never have afforded them before, and raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. On the other hand wages in China have shot up and the huge pool of cheap rural labour is mostly tapped out. Low end manufacturing is moving to other countries, Samsung now does most of their smartphone final assembly in Vietnam but those countries are smaller. That trend is playing out it's end game. Employment in the US and Europe was rising, and came close to 100% before the Pandemic. So I actually agree with your criticism, but not that there's nothing positive about it. Things change, overall I think things are changing for the better but that's never a painless process. That's why although I'm a believing market capitalist, I also support social programs and universal health care. If corporations deserve bailouts, so do ordinary citizens. We're all in it together.
- sprash 6y ago
  > On the other hand wages in China have shot up and the huge pool of cheap rural labour is mostly tapped out. I would have no problem with that if it didn't happen at the cost of American worker which it clearly did. > Employment in the US and Europe was rising, and came close to 100% before the Pandemic. You can thank the "nationalistic" trade policies of Trumps USA towards China for that. In Europe on the other hand (which had no such policies) unemployment especially in the periphery was and is still sky high and the situation was looking pretty grim also before the pandemic.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Don't trust employment statistics you didn't fake yourself. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Germany a lot of effort is put into making unemployment seem smaller than it actually is.
    - NortySpock 6y ago
      The US still blames the victim for their own unemployment. We have a long way to go before the US system feels like a a kindly helping grandfather rather than an abusive angry father that blames you for not working harder.
caycep 6y ago
Would this be a US-centric view/"filter bubble", specific to American-specific business regulation/deregulation, tax codes, and outsourcing strategies? In Asian countries, i.e. Taiwan, China, SK, Japan, Vietnam, as well as, say Mexico after NAFTA/NAFTA 2.0, what are the numbers regarding general purchasing power?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by sprash 6y ago

kungato 6y ago

Note how the GP uses the word "world" while you use the words "the US"

barrkel 6y ago

The Chinese masses are much better off today than they were in the 70s. Globalization does increase inequality, particularly in countries with a lot of capital, but it also makes the very poor better off. What the US calls the middle classes do stagnate, though, and capitalists are the biggest winners - which, don't forget, also includes pension funds as a significant fraction. Most of the top 1% are wage slaves like everyone else. The top 1% by income isn't what's interesting; it's the top 1% by assets. Wealth inequality is much bigger than income inequality.

sprash 6y ago
But china is pretty nationalistic. They allow other global companies to produce within their borders, sure. But if you try to export something from another country to china you are going to have a bad time. So the reason why Chinese masses are so much better off today is this very "one-sided" version of globalism. You might as well call it nationalism.
- scarmig 6y ago
  Plenty of people have gotten rich exporting goods to China. They just tend to be concentrated in relatively low income countries like Vietnam, exporting things like clothing and textiles. China actually likes this, because it frees resources to develop strategic industries with higher wages. Which is more or less what the US did with China.
  - sprash 6y ago
    Still China controls the borders very well and allows only products to enter when it serves the interest of China. This is the definition of nationalism and one of the reasons why the quality of life in China is rising so fast. Nationalism made China rich. Not globalism.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      I am not clear, what specifically does china limit imports of? You can sell cars, phones, just about anything i can think of, even loteral plastic waste is allowed, obly recently standards were tightened.
      - scarmig 6y ago
        Moreover, even from the West, tons of cultural products are exported to China. That's what gives Beijing the implicit power to censor the NBA, video game companies, Hollywood, etc.

simonh 6y ago

I think it's inarguable that globalisation has put downward pressure on wages in a lot of industries. It's also made cheap products widely available to people who could never have afforded them before, and raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. On the other hand wages in China have shot up and the huge pool of cheap rural labour is mostly tapped out. Low end manufacturing is moving to other countries, Samsung now does most of their smartphone final assembly in Vietnam but those countries are smaller. That trend is playing out it's end game. Employment in the US and Europe was rising, and came close to 100% before the Pandemic. So I actually agree with your criticism, but not that there's nothing positive about it. Things change, overall I think things are changing for the better but that's never a painless process. That's why although I'm a believing market capitalist, I also support social programs and universal health care. If corporations deserve bailouts, so do ordinary citizens. We're all in it together.

sprash 6y ago
> On the other hand wages in China have shot up and the huge pool of cheap rural labour is mostly tapped out. I would have no problem with that if it didn't happen at the cost of American worker which it clearly did. > Employment in the US and Europe was rising, and came close to 100% before the Pandemic. You can thank the "nationalistic" trade policies of Trumps USA towards China for that. In Europe on the other hand (which had no such policies) unemployment especially in the periphery was and is still sky high and the situation was looking pretty grim also before the pandemic.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Don't trust employment statistics you didn't fake yourself. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Germany a lot of effort is put into making unemployment seem smaller than it actually is.
  - NortySpock 6y ago
    The US still blames the victim for their own unemployment. We have a long way to go before the US system feels like a a kindly helping grandfather rather than an abusive angry father that blames you for not working harder.

caycep 6y ago

Would this be a US-centric view/"filter bubble", specific to American-specific business regulation/deregulation, tax codes, and outsourcing strategies? In Asian countries, i.e. Taiwan, China, SK, Japan, Vietnam, as well as, say Mexico after NAFTA/NAFTA 2.0, what are the numbers regarding general purchasing power?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]